The Negative Position

1
The Negative Position

• The Negative Strategy
• Refutation of Stock Issues
• Denying the Problem
• Refutation of Individual Arguments

2
Why Learn?

• Why learn to argue the negative?
• You dont think a change is necessary.
• You dont think a plan of action is appropriate.
• You dont think the reasons for change are
  correct.
• You dont think the analysis of the problem is
  correct.

3
Refuting a Claim

• Two basic choices for refuting any claim.
• There isnt sufficient proof.
• The claim itself is not true.

4
The Negative Strategy

• You can choose to argue any one or combination of
  the stock issues
• Harm
• Significance
• Inherency
• Solvency
• Disadvantages
• Your choice is the negative strategy.

5
The Negative Strategy

• Your strategy should be presented in your
  constructive speeches.
• It is too late to present part of it in the
  rebuttals.
• You need to work together with your partner to
  decide your strategy.

6
The Negative Strategy

• The Shotgun Approach
• The Sharpshooter Approach

7
The Shotgun Approach

• The shotgun approach is to argue anything and
  everything that comes to mind, hoping something
  will be good.

8
Problems

• Your arguments may contradict each other.
• Contradictions reduce the credibility of the
  negative position.
• Not enough time.
• To adequately argue all points.
• To develop detailed, complete, and memorable
  arguments.

9
The Sharpshooter Approach

• Focus only on one stock issue.

10
Problem

• It means you must win this one stock issue or
  else you lose the debate.
• Lets the affirmative easily win the other issues.

11
Conclusion

• The best negative strategy is to attack the
  affirmative on several aspects together.

12
Three Common Strategies

• Topicality
• Defense of the Present System
• The Counterplan
• Note Not only these are possible.

13
Topicality

• It is a preemptive argument.
• If you choose this one, you should only argue
  this one because you dont want to contradict
  yourself.
• When might you want to do this?
• They really are not topical.
• You have no evidence and no idea about the
  affirmative case and plan.

14
Topicality

• If you are very convincing early and the
  affirmative runs out of ways to rebut your
  arguments, then it could end up being a short
  debate!

15
Topicality

• RESOLVED That school campuses should be open.
• The affirmative plan is to keep the classrooms
  unlocked on Saturday and Sunday.
• An open campus means a student can leave campus
  at anytime.

16
Defend the Present System

• This is the strategy that is most commonly argued
  by the negative.
• Argue there is no reason to try and change the
  status quo.

17
Defend the Present System

• The affirmative plan will bring more harm than
  good.
• Harms in the present system are not as great as
  the harms caused by the plan.
• The harms reduced by the plan is less than the
  harms caused by the plan.

18
Defend the Present System
Compare harms of the status quo with harms of the
plan.
Compare the harms reduced by the plan and the
harms of the plan.
Plan
Reduced
SQ
SQ
Plan
19
Defend the Present System

• The harms do not exist.
• Provide counter-evidence
• The harms are not significant (or as the
  affirmative says).
• Provide counter-evidence
• Present system is solving the problem.
• Old programs
• New programs

20
Defend the Present System

• Concede that nothing can be done about the harms.

21
Example

• RESOLVED The government should invest more money
  into space technology.
• Harm The sun is getting bigger and will burn up
  the earth.
• Plan Develop a way to shrink the sun.
• Argue Cannot stop the suns growth.

22
Stop
23
The Counterplan

• Admits the status quo needs to be changed.
• The negative presents their own plan.
• Argues that the negatives plan is better than
  the affirmatives plan.
• The burden of proof is on the negative.
• This is a more advanced strategy.

24
The Counterplan

• When might you use it?
• When the affirmative harms and plan are simple,
  and you feel you can easily show more harms and
  have a plan to solve them.
• When you think it is too difficult to argue
  against the affirmative along the stock issues.

25
Why Have a Negative Strategy?

• Identifies for the judge (and the affirmative
  team) the reason why you oppose the adoption of
  the affirmative case.
• Reduces chances for contradictions.
• Narrows the debate.

26
Refutation of Stock Issues

• A key negative responsibility is to refute the
  stock issues
• Harm
• Significance
• Inherency
• Solvency
• Also responsible for identifying disadvantages (a
  negative stock issue)

27
Harm or Advantage

• The affirmative can claim a harm in the status
  quo or an advantage that is being missed in the
  status quo.
• Hard to refute harms that are widely accepted
  like poverty, disease, etc. So better to attack
  these harms significance.

28
Significance

• Try to show the harm is not a serious as the
  affirmative claims.
• Can argue
• Most of the harm is voluntary (for a higher good)
• Advantage is not essential and thus not worth the
  cost
• Request quantification of the impact

29
Inherency

• Deny that the cause of the harm has been properly
  identified.
• Argue the present system can adjust and eliminate
  or reduce the harm.
• In a comparative advantage case, argue that the
  present system is in the process of achieving the
  advantages.

30
Inherency

• Can also use
• Trend arguments
• Minor repair arguments
• Discretionary power arguments

31
Trend Arguments

• Use trend arguments
• The present system is moving as rapidly as
  possible toward the desired end.
• Be careful to distinguish between current value,
  rate of change of the value, and rate of change
  of the rate of change of the value!

32
Minor Repairs

• Argue that only minor repairs are needed to the
  present system.
• Negative must prove
• Minor repair is not within the proposition
• Minor repair will work
• Be ready to defend against arguments minor repair
  has disadvantages.
• Minor repair is similar to a counterplan.

33
Discretionary Powers

• Argue that people can make their own choices
  (they have discretion), both individuals and
  administrators.
• So you cant force people to make the good or
  right decisions.
• So decisions may be easily changed in the future
  and so the problem is not inherent.

34
Solvency

• Argue that the plan will not eliminate or reduce
  the harms in a need-plan case.
• Argue that the plan will not achieve the
  advantages in a comparative advantage case.
• Argue against specific affirmative claims or
  bring in new considerations.

35
Workability

• Argues whether the plan can work.
• Lacks the necessary resources
• People
• Money
• Time

36
Workability

• Affirmative argues similar plan worked before,
  elsewhere or in a pilot program.
• It may have worked before but conditions are now
  different.
• It may have worked somewhere else, but the
  situation is crucially different in Taiwan.
• It may have worked in a pilot program, but it
  wont work in a full-fledged program.

37
Circumvention

• Argue that peoples attitude will not change and
  these attitudes are what cause or allow the
  harms.
• The plan just treats the symptoms and not the
  disease.
• People can get around the plan.
• Focus on the sinful nature of humans.

38
Disadvantages

• It is hard to argue against a good affirmative
  case in relation to the four stock issues harm,
  significance, inherency and solvency.
• So arguing disadvantages of the plan is the
  negatives last resort.
• Still best to combine arguments of disadvantages
  with other stock issues.

39
Disadvantages

• Argue that the plan has side effects.
• The burden of proof is on the negative.
• Has similar parts as the affirmatives case.
• Disadvantages (harm)
• More than advantages (significance)
• Direct result of the plan (inherency)

40
Harms of the Affirmative Plan

• Two types of harms from the plan
• Increases the harm it is meant to reduce
• Causes harms that are different from the ones it
  is meant to reduce.

41
Disadvantages greater than Advantages

• The negative must show that the harm caused by
  the plan is greater (more significant) than the
  harms reduced by the plan.
• May use the straw that broke the camels back
  argument.

42
Disadvantages greater than Advantages

• There may be a conflict of values in deciding
  which is greater so the negative must defend the
  value system used.

43
Relationship Between the Plan and Harm

• You must show the plan actually would cause the
  harms (the disadvantages).
• You must clearly show the link between the plan
  and the cause of the harm.

44
Uniqueness

• The negative must argue the uniqueness of the
  disadvantage to the plan.
• Must argue that if we dont implement the plan,
  then we will not have the disadvantage.

45
Denying the Problem

• Challenging the Affirmative Proof
• Counterposition
• Combining Challenges and Counterpositions
• Conceding the Argument
• Applying the Types of Refutation

46
Challenging the Affirmative Proof

• Argue that the affirmative has failed to meet its
  burden of proof.
• Ask for evidence or proof.
• Question the reliability of the evidence or
  proof. Best to do this with your own evidence.

47
Counterposition

• Establish the real truth as different from what
  the affirmative claims.
• The negative has the burden of proof for a
  counterposition argument.
• Conclude your argument by saying if it is A then
  it cant be B.

48
Combining Challenges and Counterpositions

• Best to try and combine both challenges to the
  affirmatives proof and offering a
  counterposition.

49
Conceding the Argument

• Conceding an argument may be beneficial to you.
• It will give you more time to attack a weaker
  affirmative argument.
• Explain why conceding the particular argument is
  not important to the important issues of the
  debate (i.e. focus on what are the important
  issues).

50
Applying the Types of Refutation

• Four possible positions on any argument
• (1) Refute the adequacy of the affirmative proof.
• (2) Establish the truth of a counterposition.
• (3) Combine (1) and (2).
• (4) Concede the argument but explain.

51
Applying the Types of Refutation

• Can conduct refutation on three levels
• How each soldier will fight (who leads attacks
  and counterattacks).
• The tactics of engagement.
• The overall battle plan to be at the right place
  at the right time.

52
Refutation of Individual Arguments

• Generalizations
• Causal Arguments
• Sign Arguments
• Testimony

53
Generalizations

• A generalization is saying something is true
  because there are a number of examples where it
  is true.

54
Generalizations

• How to refute a generalization
• Time Frame
• Number of Examples
• Counterexample
• Relevance

55
Time Frame

• The examples may be out dated (too long ago).
• The examples are unique due to unique situations
  (i.e. not typical).
• The future is different from the past.

56
Time Frame

• The negative has the burden of proof to show the
  present or future will be different from the past.

57
Number of Examples

• Argue there are not enough examples to make the
  generalization (i.e. the affirmative has made a
  hasty generalization).
• Similar to the unique situation or atypical
  argument.

58
Number of Examples

• How much is enough is often a matter of
  judgement.
• Can use simple proportion (percent).
• Argue the number of examples is not proportional
  to the conclusion.
• Give more counterexamples than examples.

59
Counterexamples

• A counter example is an example that is different
  from the affirmatives examples.
• It causes one to doubt the generalizations drawn
  from the examples.

60
Relevance

• Challenge whether the examples really support the
  generalization.
• Argue the situation of an example is different
  from the situation of the generalization.

61
Causal Arguments

• One event causes another.
• How to refute Causal Arguments
• Finding the Real Cause
• Multiple Causality
• Counteracting Causality

62
Finding the Real Cause

• Argue the affirmatives cause is only an
  intermediate cause. They do not have the
  fundamental cause.
• Argue that without solving the fundamental (the
  real or root) cause, the problem will still
  continue even if you remove the intermediate
  cause.

63
Multiple Causality

• There may be more than one cause of a harm.
• There may be interlocking causes (you cant get
  reduce the harm with eliminating all of the
  causes).

64
Counteracting Causality

• There may be counteracting causes, a
  self-corrective mechanism.
• The present system can correct itself
  (eventually) so the harm is not inherent, wont
  get worse and worse.
• The plan will set in motion some counteracting
  forces and so it cannot solve the problem.

65
Sign Arguments

• A sign argument says that when X appears, so does
  Y.
• It does not explicitly say X causes Y, but it
  implies X causes Y, or there is some connection.
• Useful when exact cause is still not known.

66
Countersigns

• Signs that give different conclusions than the
  signs that the affirmative presents.
• Similar to counterexamples.

67
Affirmative Emphasis

• When you have signs and countersigns, you need to
  distinguish which ones are more telling or
  intrinsic.
• When it is hard to tell which signs are intrinsic
  or substantive, then you need to argue which one
  is more consistent or more often accompanies the
  event.

68
Testimony

• A testimony is a statement of opinion.
• How to refute a testimony
• Reliable Source
• Consensus
• Disinterested Testimony
• Recent Testimony
• Values Consistent with Community

69
Reliable Sources

• Check the source of the testimony.
• Is the source reliable?
• This is why it is important to put information
  about the source on the evidence.
• This is one reason why information on the
  Internet is not always reliable.

70
Consensus

• Is there a consensus among experts?
• If there is substantial disagreement among
  experts, then expert testimony is not a good
  basis for determining policy.
• The side with the burden of proof would lose the
  argument because of presumption.

71
Disinterested Testimony

• Does the person giving the testimony have
  something to gain by the acceptance of the
  policy?
• If so, the testimony can be questioned.
• The opposite could also work against the negative.

72
Recent Testimony

• Recent testimony is better (just like recent
  evidence is better).
• Must also argue there is a difference between the
  time of the testimonies (i.e. something is
  crucially different).

73
Values Consistent with Community

• Experts may not hold values consistent with the
  community.
• Debate exists within the framework of democratic
  values.
• So debate is concerned about the value of the
  majority (community) over the value of minority
  (experts, lobbyists).

74
Yeah! Were Done!